Apple Versus the G-Men

VIRGINIA BEACH – Apple’s refusal to unlock the iPhone linked to the extremist attack in San Bernardino, California, in December has triggered a public battle with the US Justice Department and the FBI – a dispute with far-reaching implications for data privacy worldwide. But the case is not as straightforward as it seems.

Speaking as someone with a long presence in the US intelligence community, I believe that the FBI has already gained access to Syed Rizwan Farook’s iPhone. It is an older Apple model using technology that, in other contexts, has already been compromised.

Here’s another strange thing about the FBI’s demand of Apple: Why would the United States government stoop to a public debate on this issue? The FBI is the country’s most powerful law-enforcement organization, and Apple will ultimately be forced to comply with its request. (Full disclosure: I own Apple stock.)

The FBI has already said that this is not about just one phone. But few understand that this is not a simple matter of opposing interests: public safety versus an individual’s right to privacy.

For a better understanding of the FBI’s demand, we need to look at Apple’s latest line of phones, which differ from Farook’s in a fundamental respect: They contain a new chip that was designed using a technique developed by the US National Security Agency and then shared with the Israelis. That technology is now finding its way into Apple products via the company’s Israeli chip-design division.

Each of the new chips has a unique signature used for encryption, which is coupled with its user’s fingerprint. Without that signature, it is impossible to decrypt an Apple phone without physical access to the internals of its chip – which is itself impenetrable. That encryption also applies to any information sent by the phone to a paired service, like Apple’s Messages system.

In the past, immediate access to telephony devices has been irrelevant to the FBI, because the authorities had unfettered access to communications as they traveled to and from a phone. But, with its new security improvements, Apple is now closing that door. The company is not simply denying new access; it will soon take away existing access.

This bothers the FBI, because its job is to collect evidence. Interestingly, the NSA has taken a different stance. Backdoors have been acknowledged as dangerous by NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers, who says that “encryption is foundational to the future.” When access to private communications is possible, anyone can use it for any purpose.

This complicates the FBI’s argument about public safety. For example, do we really want a terrorist group to be capable of accessing a president’s or prime minister’s private information? If a phone has a backdoor, it can be opened by anyone with enough motivation – criminals, extremists, and governments alike.

The Chinese authorities, for example, would be delighted if Apple complied with the FBI’s request. They have been asking Apple for a backdoor for years. Apple’s current stand could cause it to suffer in the massive Chinese market – or profit immensely if it complies.

The FBI’s request signals a new attempt at control. This is an organization that usually delivers its requests under seal, meaning they remain secret. In this case, the FBI took the unusual step of making its demand public, so as to push the issue into the press by hitting the hot button of “terrorism.” The FBI’s intent, it seems, is to prompt lawmakers to respond to public outrage.

Most legal arguments against “unlocking” this particular phone cite the constitutionally protected right to free speech. But a better parallel is the right to gun ownership in the US and the constitutional provisions that support it.

In the past, technology in the US was primarily developed in a military context and justified in the service of war, but also to maintain civil order. At the end of the eighteenth century, the apotheosis of that technology was the firearm. No other technology was as apt, so the US Constitution specified that it would not be used to curtail speech (First Amendment) or be denied to the citizenry (Second Amendment), and that government holders of firearms could not be placed in citizens’ homes (Third Amendment). The Ninth and Tenth Amendments proscribe the use of firearms to compromise other implicit rights as they may become apparent.

Today’s most powerful technologies relate to information concerning our thoughts, associations, and bodies. If the framers of the US Constitution were alive today and as well educated as they were then, the Bill of Rights would likely be focused on balancing access to information to ensure that the government remains within bounds.

With this public request from the FBI, the balance between people and policing is being called into question. As the debate unfolds, we need to consider whether it makes sense, legally or as a matter of policy, for everyone – law enforcement, hackers, and terrorists – to be able to possess or access information.

The Apple case will affect the balance of informational power, and the scales currently are weighted against the citizen. Resolving the case requires a more considered response from US politicians than hysterical tweeting. In view of the modern power of information, they must think carefully about the legal ramifications of the FBI’s demand.

Incorrect please try again

Enter the numbers/words aboveEnter the numbers you hearCaptcha is invalid, generate another one and use it

Comments

Privacy is a privilege that evaporates once acts against humanity occur. Apple should be held in contempt and should be prosecuted for designing systems to flout due process in criminal cases. These should not be offered to the general public. Fine for government communication systems under national security premise, but the market for profit a system that usurps laws designed to protect the general public should be patently illegal themselves. Read more

"The concept of privacy, the prime minister said, was antiquated – or at least different than it used to be. “The networks are exposed. The fact that we have networks, increasing complexity of networks, interconnectivity on networks means that anything and everything can be exposed. The Internet of everything means that everything can be violated,” said Netanyahu. “The whole idea of intellectual property – that is being fundamentally challenged. The privacy of individuals – fundamentally challenged. The sanctity of our bank accounts – fundamentally challenged. And this goes obviously into public systems: power grids, traffic nets, water systems – you name it. Everything can be violated. Everything can be opened up. Everything can be also sabotaged.” ( http://www.timesofisrael.com/netanyahu-israel-is-leading-wests-cyber-security-fight/)

Today governments (and the military) are concerned about the exposure of classified information to the public. Publishing companies are concerned about the violation of there copyrights in the new digital world. But what about the private intellectual property - private notes are no longer written on a piece of paper, as it used to be for several hundred years. They are typed into an Smartphone or iPhone. What are the consequences of an backdoor access to this information by an governmental organization? This question is discussed in the project-syndicate article ( https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/apple-versus-the-fbi-by-h-t-goranson-2016-02#5il8gkIJz3XqoBx8.99 ) by H.T. Goranson:

From the article: "Each of the new chips has a unique signature used for encryption, which is coupled with its user’s fingerprint. "

... thus today we can securely write messages and notes on an iPhone, respectively an iPAD? However, as mentioned in the article, the FBI could force Apple to design a back door into the chip. In this case the unique identifier makes it quite easy for an government to find any person who wrote a particular keyword - whatever this implies for this person. Thus the iPhone can become a threat for its user in an autocratic system, if it the autocratic government has access to a backdoor. I personally think that the functionality of a security chip should be part of a democratic audit. If the FBI has actually the power to force a company like Apple to integrate a backdoor, than the U.S. is moving away from democratic principles and it must be asked, if there must be a security chip for the european or asian market, reflecting the privacy rights in each region? I personally think that the iPhone security (without a backdoor) is a great improvement. Well, we all have valid passports (except spy's, terrorists and criminals) and this is a big step forwards to make the digital world more real. However, the missing transparent audit process for mobile phone security is worrying.

From the article: "Backdoors have been acknowledged as dangerous by NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers, who says that “encryption is foundational to the future.” When access to private communications is possible, anyone can use it for any purpose.

This complicates the FBI’s argument about public safety. For example, do we really want a terrorist group to be capable of accessing a president’s or prime minister’s private information? If a phone has a backdoor, it can be opened by anyone with enough motivation – criminals, extremists, and governments alike."

l...........

"Today’s most powerful technologies relate to information concerning our thoughts, associations, and bodies. If the framers of the US Constitution were alive today and as well educated as they were then, the Bill of Rights would likely be focused on balancing access to information to ensure that the government remains within bounds."

The last paragraph applies in a figurative sense also to Europe, where some governments today develop official spyware, instead of official security. Mobile phones are obviously not regarded as systematic relevant (in contrast to financial institutions) for the future of Europe. But how can Europe create a single digital market, without secure digital devices, which obey the european law. Lets face, if smartphones, iPhones, server, storage system, communication devices, search engines, etc. are designed with or without backdoors, this is not in the hand of Brussel. There are no digital companies left in Europe, which could provide the technical infrastructure for a digital market.

P.S. Further does it say in the above Times of Israel article: "Among the visitors are over 450 heads of industry and cyber-security agencies from around the world, said Efrati. Among the larger delegations was the U.S. delegation, including 50 people from the White House and the Department of Homeland Security, and delegations from South Korea, Mexico, NASA. Representatives of the armies of Brazil, Mexico, Italy and the Netherlands, IT companies from Colombia, Ghana, and Nigeria, and a cyber-security team from Canada were also in attendance."

This is a very misleading commentary. The White House has clearly stated that the request is just for this phone. While the password, including Apples addition can clearly be hacked, but not in a way that accesses data on the phone. The SW on the phone requires several seconds between attempts to enter the correct password, and allows onlv 10 attempts before all data is erased. The FBI wants these 2 features to be disabled, and wants to be able to enter password attempts electronically instead of by keystrokes. That is all they have asked for. They will then take care of running however many attempts is needed to hack the password using well developed techniques readily available on the Internet. No greater scheme like a universal back door has been requested. They have not asked for a general tool to disable these barriers, but will allow Apple to do the job and keep the method/tools to themselves. Apple's CEO's assertion that this is the first step on the slippery slope to a back door is really stretching the longbow. Read more

1. If it is simply about Farook's phone, it would be pretty simple as a law enforcement issue to ask Apple through a court order to use its best efforts to recover the content and provide it to the FBI without any need to disclose how they had reconstructed the content. I don't think any citizen could argue against a reasonable request to help solve a particular crime where there is a self-evident prime suspect.

2. The second thing is too complicated to summarise succinctly but it involves the NSA's legal restraint from surveilling US citizens and I guess thus the need to push the FBI to be the front-runner in pressuring phone-makers (and of course network and OTT operators) for accessibility....which will give the NSA what they need.Read more

Encryption is something that protects the non-powerful from the powerful, just as allowing hand guns does. If you think the the powerful only have good intention watch this TED talk: https://www.ted.com/talks/will_potter_the_secret_us_prisons_you_ve_never_heard_of_before Read more

Almost everything that Apple stands for comes before the interest of any other constituency, including that of the customer or the government if it threatens to question the business model it is pursuing; in this case it is an even bigger stake involved when a multi-billion dollar cyber-security market is up for grabs.

This back-door for one phone is good enough to influence hackers to co-create a solution that could well be better than the original. Read more

If the FBI would obtain a search warrant on the phone, Apple would open the phone. Apple opposes any backdoor to it's technology. I thought warrantless searches were illegal and violated the constitution. Apparently, the NSA has FAR MORE power than ANY government agency should have. Read more

H>T. one of the more thoughtful pieces I have read on the subject. We have written that the risk here should not be underestimated; if the Department of Justice prevails and manages to force Apple to create a backdoor and thereby fatally weaken the security of iPhone encryption, the ramifications will dog us for years to come. If backdoors are mandated in products such as the iPhone, what we’ll be doing is making it much, much easier for hackers to compromise our identities, our finances, and our privacy all for the fiction of making us safer by making life easier for law enforcement. We will reference your material when we do another update on the subject. Thanks! https://articles.azstec.com/ Read more

If Apple is capable of unlocking this phone, then that means that someone is capable. The FBI and the judge in this case simply need to hire someone capable to unlock the phone. By what law do they have the right to compel Apple? Read more

Apple will lose this one simply because their position is not attracting majority US public support. Their position then is to make sure everybody knows they were forced to open the door. 'Its not us guv' Read more

Apple's playing a losing hand. The FBI is playing nice. China and several other nations will not. If Apple wants access to China in the long term it will surrender if it hasn't already. It likely has if you believe China's government will tolerate phones it can't read I have a bridge to sell you. Read more

Apple's case, so presented, is stronger than the FBI's case. I am usually of the inclination that the State should have access to information that it needs to keep the population safe, but in this case, let the State get its information through other means. Read more

PS On Air: The Super Germ Threat

NOV 2, 2016

In the latest edition of PS On
Air
, Jim O’Neill discusses how to beat antimicrobial resistance, which
threatens millions of lives, with Gavekal Dragonomics’ Anatole Kaletsky
and Leonardo Maisano of
Il Sole 24 Ore.

Subscribe to our Newsletter

Subscribe to our Newsletter

Sign up to receive newsletters about what's being discussed on Project Syndicate.

EmailReceive our Sunday newsletterA weekly collection of our most discussed columnsReceive our PS On Point newsletterStay informed of the world's leading opinions on global issues

Why not register an account with us, too? You'll be able to follow individual authors (to receive notifications whenever they publish new articles) and subscribe to more specific, topic-based newsletters.

Project Syndicate provides readers with original, engaging, and thought-provoking commentaries by global leaders and thinkers. By offering incisive perspectives from those who are shaping the world’s economics, politics, science, and culture, Project Syndicate has created an unrivaled global venue for informed public debate.